Life Sentences for Juveniles - Essay Example

There is much debate about whether laws regarding life sentences for juveniles should be revised. Those who support revising the laws argue that juveniles are undeveloped and impulsive by nature, often lacking risk assessment skills. Those against revising the laws argue that severe crimes deserve severe punishment, and also point to increases in juvenile crime. Juvenile cases have gone to the Supreme Court to be heard, based on the premise that life in prison is cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles, particularly in crimes that do not involved murder. It has also been pointed out that many adults who have committed the same crimes have not received life in prison. States that view juvenile crime as a serious issue have been particularly tough in sentencing juvenile offenders. Florida is one of those states. “Of the 109 juveniles serving life terms for non-homicide offenses across the country, 70 percent are in the Sunshine State” (Totenberg). According to Michel Martin of NPR, in an interview with Alan Simpson and Dwayne Betts, “nine people are serving life sentences for crimes they committed when they were 13 or 14.” Ironically, just four years earlier, in 2005, Supreme Court justices had ruled that the death penalty was too harsh for juveniles, due to their immaturity and possible lack of judgment. The Supreme Court also said that this ruling only applied to the death penalty, as it was permanent. Bryan Stevenson, an attorney who represented a Florida youth serving a life sentence argues that a life sentence is different from other prison sentences because there is no hope for the juvenile to ever have a life outside prison. Stevenson states “they’re just two different kinds of death sentences.” “One is death by execution, the other death by incarceration” (Totenberg). Regardless of the argument, 19 states have filed briefs that support life in prison sentences without parole, for juveniles who commit crimes other than murder. The ongoing debate about life sentences for juveniles continues to be argued, though to date, the Supreme court has not overturned any decisions on cases presented. Those arguing against life sentences continue to claim that, as the Supreme Court recognizes differences between juveniles and adults, those differences should be considered when passing prison sentences as well. Those against life in prison sentences also argue that there should be a difference between crimes involving murder and non-murder cases, when deciding sentences for juvenile offenders. A specific case presented for argument in the High Court involves Terrence Graham, who was sixteen when he plead guilty to attempted robbery of a restaurant. He spent a year in jail then was released on probation. At 17, only six months later, he was arrested fleeing from the scene of a residential armed robbery. The judge rejected a four year prison term and sentenced Graham to life in prison, claiming he could do no more to help the youth. Graham’s lawyer, Bryan Gowdy, claims the sentence for Graham is unconstitutional as “life without parole sentence for armed burglary is unconstitutionally disproportionate because it is more than two times greater than Floridas sentence for the average murderer” (Totenberg). Stevenson also argues against life in prison sentences, as no state legislature has specifically authorized life sentences without parole for youths at age 13 or 14 at the time of their crimes. Supporters of life sentences claim the decisions should be left to the states. Louisiana Attorney General Caldwell argues that the expertise to handle juvenile cases is in the states, not “sitting in a court in Washington D.C.” (Totenberg). Two cases heard by the supreme court, involving juveniles who have committed non-murder crimes, including the case of Terrence Graham, have been brought to the Supreme Court, but have not been overturned. A Modus Ponens (MP) argument is typically self evident and the conclusion is easy to deduce. In the case of arguing for and against life sentences for juveniles, the only MP argument presented is that increasing numbers of crimes are committed by juveniles in Florida. This argument is easily deduced with crime statistics, though specific numbers are not presented in the above arguments. Modus Tonens arguments are more difficult to infer but also valid. Bryan Stevenson argues on the same premise that the Supreme Court used to take away the death penalty for juveniles: that juveniles are less mature, less able to use proper judgment, and more easily influenced by peers. Though levels of emotional and cognitive development may differ from one juvenile to another, the argument is also valid. Sources for these premises are prior court rulings and crime statistics are reliable and cannot be disproved. They are also based on reasonable beliefs. The argument that a life sentence is comparable to a death sentence is less valid. Bryan Stevenson compares the two as if they are equal. This is not necessarily reasonable, as Stevenson has not proved that life sentences necessarily lead to death or even that they are comparable. The premises is based on a reasonable belief that life in prison offers no hope, yet the hidden assumption is that life in prison is necessarily harsh, provides no opportunity for entertainment, education, or recreation. The argument for life sentences for juveniles assumes that they cannot be rehabilitated and that attempts have been made, based on the judge’s ruling in the Terrence Graham case. There is no evidence presented that Graham received rehabilitative services while in prison for the first time. It is not a valid argument if, based on what is presented, one cannot know what type of rehabilitation was undertaken. We can also not assume that one year in prison is actually doing anything for juveniles, in terms of rehabilitation, though this is what the judge eludes to. Therefore, it becomes a fallacy, due to lack of background information or details. It is also an invalid argument to infer that the Supreme Court is unable to decide cases involving juveniles, due to lack of experience. Attorney General Caldwell claims the states have more experience in juvenile cases. Yet, it is the Supreme Court that decided against the Death Penalty for juvenile cases. While states may have more experience in trying juvenile cases, this is an invalid causal premise. Experience trying juvenile cases does not necessarily lead to correct application of the law and sentencing. Alan Simpson, a former Wyoming senator, and R.Dwayne Betts, a well known writer and author, have past juvenile records. Simpson was involved in arson, destroyed property, got into a fight and assaulted an officer, as a youth. He spent one night in jail. Betts carjacked a man, which led to nine years in prison. His argument that prison is not the place for rehabilitation appears to go against the assumptions of the judge who sentence Terrence Graham to life in prison. He states “I think the judge also recognized that prison was not the place where I will be rehabilitated” (Martin). First, the nine year sentence and Betts’ subsequent success show an example of juvenile rehabilitation, though, again no specific details are provided. The assumptions are that Graham’s actions are similar to Betts’ criminal acts. A key difference is that Graham was involved in another crime while on probation. There is no background information on rehabilitation efforts for either Betts or Graham, so the causal premise that rehabilitation is a better alternative than prison is a fallacy. Simpson’s actions cannot compare. He spent no time in prison. Perhaps if details of how he came to turn his life around were mentioned, a stronger argument for rehabilitation over prison could be made. The lack of background information in Simpson’s example is a an unexamined assumption. While juvenile life sentences may be harsh, the evidence in the articles does not appear strong enough based on age alone. Other factors, such as comparison of sentencing in Florida of adult criminals is a stronger component of the argument. Yet there is still quite a bit of information missing to make a very strong case. Reduction in serious crime committed by juveniles, as provided by statistics, would make a stronger argument for juvenile life sentences. More statistics or case evidence of juveniles who have been sentenced to life in prison as opposed to those who have not might also make a stronger case for not imposing life sentences for juveniles committing crimes that do not involve murder. Works Cited Martin, M. “Should Juveniles be Sent to Prison for Life?” NPR (Dec. 2009). 9 Dec. 2009 Totenberg, N. “High Court Weights Life Sentence for Minors” NPR (Dec. 2009) 9 Dec.2009 Read More